JUDGMENT This revisional application is for quashing of the proceeding being case No. 93-C/98 under Sections 379/342 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah. 2. The opposite party No. 2 filed a petition of complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah alleging commission of an offence under Sections 379/392/393/323/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On receipt of the said petition of complaint the learned Magistrate examined the complainant and his witnesses, took cognizance of the offence and issued process under Sections 379/342 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Mr. Milon Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that on the basis of a Lease Agreement the petitioners’ company financed the opposite party No. 2 for purchasing a T.D.V. Truck bearing registration No. W.B. 25-6901. As per the said agreement the opposite party No. 2 was under obligation to pay lease rentals due and payable towards the financed amount by way of monthly instalments. Mr. Mukherjee further submits that in the said lease agreement there is also default clause wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the petitioners company has got the right to take possession of the leasehold items in case of default in making the payments. The opposite party No. 2 became a defaulter and as on 31.1.98 the total amount due was to the tune of about Rs. 2,93,000/-. The petitioner requested the opposite party No. 2 to clear the dues, but he failed to make the payment. Thereafter, the representative of the petitioners company took possession of the vehicle. A seizure list was prepared, in which the driver of the vehicle and the representative of the petitioners company put their signatures. The petitioners informed the Bally Police Station through telegram as well as by a letter dated 8th January, 1998 about the fact of taking possession of the vehicle. 4. Mr. Mukherjee submits that the proceeding initiated is clearly an abuse of the process of the Court. It cannot be said to be a case of theft and it is a bona fide civil dispute which led to the seizure of the vehicle in dispute. In support of his contention Mr. Mukherjee relies on a judgment reported in (1) AIR 1979 SC 850 . It appears from the said judgment that a truck was purchased under hire purchase agreement, in which there was a default clause. In support of his contention Mr. Mukherjee relies on a judgment reported in (1) AIR 1979 SC 850 . It appears from the said judgment that a truck was purchased under hire purchase agreement, in which there was a default clause. The purchaser became a defaulter in making the payment. Truck was seized by the financer, for which a prosecution was launched against the financer. It was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the proceeding initiated was clearly an abuse of the process of the Court and the dispute was purely of a civil nature even assuming the facts stated in the complaint was substantially correct. 5. The next judgment relied upon by Mr. Mukherjee is reported in (2) 1991 Cr. LJ 2897, from which it appears that relying on the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court the proceeding was quashed by the Hon'ble Single Judge of Delhi High Court in similar circumstances. 6. I have carefully gone through the judgments referred to above and I am of the opinion that those two judgments are applicable in the instant case. I have also perused the connected papers which are annexed to the revisional application. In my considered opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case the allegations made in the petition of complaint do not constituted an offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code for committing theft of concerned vehicle. So far as the offence under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, I am of the view that the allegations made in the petition of complaint do not make out any offence under the said section. 7. Mr. Mitra, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party No. 2 submits that the instant proceeding should not be quashed at this initial stage and the points raised by the petitioner in this revisional application, can be agitated at the appropriate stage in the trial Court. But I do not find any merit in such submission of Mr. Mitra. This Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction can quash a criminal proceeding at any stage if it comes to the continuances that continuance of such proceeding will be an abuse of the process of the Court. In the result, the revisional application succeeds and the same is allowed. Mitra. This Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction can quash a criminal proceeding at any stage if it comes to the continuances that continuance of such proceeding will be an abuse of the process of the Court. In the result, the revisional application succeeds and the same is allowed. The impugned proceeding being case No. 93-C/98 pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah, is hereby quashed.